registry_register_tool

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well on the critical path: it discloses that a signature is required, gives the exact signed message template, and explicitly states the tool never signs for you. It omits secondary traits such as idempotency/re-registration behavior, failure modes, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the auth requirement, with no filler. The embedded message template is verbose but is required payload information rather than padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the signing prerequisite adequately but leaves several parameters and any sense of the return/registration result unexplained. It is sufficient to attempt the call but not fully self-contained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%, so the schema documents most parameters; the description adds genuine meaning by showing how name, endpoint_url, and timestamp feed into the signed message and tying signature/owner_wallet together. It says nothing about category, description, protocol, or schema_url, leaving part of the parameter set unclarified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (register a tool) plus the outcome (real synthetic checks and a live score), scoping it to tools 'you own'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling register-style tools like identity_register or broker_sync_register_user, but the outcome wording makes the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it (when you want your own tool scored), but never states when not to use it or names alternatives such as registry_search_tools or registry_tool_detail. Usage must be inferred from the stated benefit rather than from explicit routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.